How hard would it be to add Lazarus at some point?
Terry McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
“Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state
education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit
obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.”
Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]
----- Original Message ----
From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: computer-go <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:59:26 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] New scalability study : show uncertainty ?
I might add that an unexpected benefit of running this study is that
I'm
now aware of a scalability issue in FatMan.
I probably should have put Lazarus in the study instead - it's a good
bit stronger and now I would like to know if it has a similar problem!
- Don
Don Dailey wrote:
> Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
>
>> Hideki Kato wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> It's rather odd. I'm checking the log file and then I will check
the
>>>> source code to see if I have some artificial limits in there.
>>>>
>>
>>> Why odd? It all depends on the bias or policy of simulations. If
>>> there is a flaw in the policy, the score will converses to the
score
>>> with some error, which will introduce some limit of scalability,
>>> isn't it?
>>>
>> That is a very good point. Perhaps it is not the case with FatMan,
but
>> that may surely happen. In this study no program is playing with
>> uniformly random playouts and perhaps only uniformly random playouts
>> will scale to perfection. Of course, I can imagine that reaching the
>> strength of Mogo_13 with uniformly random playouts can require a
>> number of simulations that is not feasible. So I don't have any idea
>> about how to improve the study, but this is a serious limitation
that
>> has to be considered: If you find some ceiling, the ceiling may be
>> attributed to the playout policy, not to UCT.
>>
> I think there is a performance bug in FatMan causing the lack of
> scalability. FatMan should play perfectly given enough time but it
> looks like it stopped.
>
> For instance one problem that would make it stop improving is an
> arbitrary limit on depth. I do have an arbitrary limit of 30 ply,
> but I don't think this is a problem at these time-controls. In fact
I
> run a version off-line where I instrument this and it does not exceed
25
> ply in any line over one whole game.
>
> There are other things that would put a hard limit on how strong it
> could potentially play, but I haven't found it yet.
>
> - Don
>
>
>
>> Jacques.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> computer-go mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
>
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
